Of 85 active-duty women who responded to this year’s poll, 22 percent
said they have been diagnosed with PTSD. That represents a small but
notable increase from 2009, when only 15 percent of female respondents
said they had PTSD.
Over the same period, the percentage of
active-duty men who say they’ve been diagnosed with PTSD rose from 9
percent to 14 percent.

Related, as a woman and a feminist, I try to highlight women as much as
possible here. But I'm not interested, for example, in a piece by an
idiot who talks about "our boys" with PTSD. I'm especially not
interested when the idiot writing that sexist b.s. is a woman.

I'll be the bitch when it's required. I'll, for example, piss off
friends who are working on the mural above. That's fine. Someone
needed to step up, I'll do it. But at this late date, why am I having
to step up and point out that female service members suffer from PTSD?

At this late date, why?

I can remember early in the war attending Congressional hearings and my
spine would stiffen as some male member of Congress would say "our boys"
or "men" and ignore the women serving. The awareness on women in the
service is now so great that rarely do you hear that in a hearing
anymore and, if you do, the member of Congress usually rushes to quickly
ammend "and women" to his statement.

So why at this late date do I have to be the one to point out that "our
boys" with PTSD is insulting and inaccurate as well as highly sexist?
Wait. Someone was stupid enough to do that? And it was a woman who did! I asked C.I. the name of the dumb ass.

It's Nan Levinson and she wrote "Mad, Bad, Sad What's Really Happened to America's Soldiers" (no link to that trash) which includes:

Story
upon story about the damage done to our guys in uniform -- drinking,
divorce, depression, destitution -- a laundry list of miseries and
victimhood. When it comes to veterans, it seems like the only response
we can imagine is to feel sorry for them.

Nan Levinson is the idiot of the week. She earned the title and then some. "Our guys"? She really is a piece of work.

Friday, June 29, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Congress hears
that a Status Of Forces Agreement was need in Iraq, how can you do
oversight when you can't move around in Iraq, the political crisis
continues, and more.

"First," declared US House Rep Jason Chaffetz yesterday morning explaining the purpose of the
Committee, "Americans have the right to know that the money Washington
takes from them is well spent. And second Americans deserve efficient,
effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights."

Chaffetz is the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform's
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations which held a hearing on Iraq.

Appearing before the Subcommittee on the first panel were: US State
Dept's Patrick Kennedy, Peter Verga and USAID's Mara Rudman. Panel two
was the US Government Accountability Office's Michael Courts, the State
Dept's Acting Inspecting General Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy
Inspector General for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, USAID's Deputy
Inspector General Michael Carroll and the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen Jr.

Chair Jason Chaffetz: The State Dept has greatly expanded its footprint in Iraq. There are approximately 2,000 direct-hire personnel and 14,000 support contractors -- roughly a seven-to-one ratio. This includes 7,000 private security contractors to guard our facilities and move personnel throughout Iraq. Leading up to the withdrawal, the State Dept's mission seemed clear. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy
testified that the diplomatic mission was "designed to maximize
influence in key locations." And later said, "State will continue the police development programs moving beyond basic policing skills to provide police forces with the capabilities to uphold the rule of law. The Office of Security Cooperation will help close gaps in Iraq's security forces capabilities through security assistance and cooperation." This is an unprecedented mission for the State Dept. Nonetheless, our diplomatic corps has functioned without the protections of a typical host nation. It's also carried on without troop support that many believed it would have. As a result, the Embassy spends roughly 93% of its budget on security alone. Without a doubt, this is an enormously complex and difficult mission. Six months into the transition, the Congress must assess whether the administration is accomplishing its mission? While the State Dept has made progress, it appears to be facing difficult challenges in a number of areas. The Oversight Committee has offered some criticism based on their testimony today. Including the
Government Accountability Office noting that the State and Defense
Dept's security capabilities are not finalized. The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction states that, "Thousands of projects completed by the United States and transferred to the government of Iraq will not be sustained and thus will fail to meet their intended purposes." The Defense Dept's Inspector General's Office explains that the lack of Status of Forces Agreement has impacted land use agreements, force protection, passport visa requirements, air and ground movement and our foreign military sales program. And the
US AID Inspector General's office testifies, "According to US AID
mission, the security situation has hampered its ability to monitor programs. Mission personnel are only occassionaly able to travel to the field for site visits." Embassy personnel have also told Committee staff that the United States government has difficulty registering its vehicles with the Iraqi government and Iraqis have stood up checkpoints along supply lines. According to one embassy official, the team must dispatch a liason to "have tea and figure out how we're going to get our trucks through." These are just some of the challenges the State Dept is facing in Iraq today. Perhaps as a result of these conditions, Mission Iraq appears to be evolving. In an effort to be more efficient, the State Dept is evaluating its footprint, reducing personnel and identifying possible reductions. This rapid change in strategy, however, raises a number of questions. Are we on the
right track? Are we redefining the mission? What should we expect in
the coming months? And, in hindsight, was this a well managed
withdrawal?

The first panel was a joke in so many ways. Someone please convey to the State Dept that they
don't look 'manly' offering football allusions to Iraq. With all the
people -- Iraqis, Americans, etc. -- it's really beyond insensitive for
State to show up and try to talk football. There have been far too many
deaths for anyone to see this as a game or match and you'd think the
diplomatic arm of the government would grasp that on their own and
wouldn't need that pointed out. In addition to the unneeded sports
comparisons and examples, there were also the answers which could be
honest only if you agreed to ignore the facts. US House Rep Blake
Farenthold became Acting Chair where we're doing our excerpt.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: I just have one more question so we'll just do a quick second round of questions. Ambassador Kennedy, you mentioned the Baghdad police college annex facility as one of the facilities. It's my
understanding that the United States' taxpayers have invested more than
$100 million in improvements on that site. It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's currently being downsized. And as a result of the State Dept's
failure to secure land use rights the entire facility is being turned
over to the Iraqis at no cost. The GAO reports Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all
of the sites that it operates. Can you say with confidence that those
sites now operating without leases or agreements will not be turned over
to Iraq for free as was the case with the police development program?
And what would the cost to the US taxpayer be if they were to lose without compensation all of those facilities?

Patrick Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the statement that has been -- that you were reading from about we are closing the Baghdad police
development center because of a failure to have land use rights is
simply factually incorrect. We have a land use agreement for that site. As part of the program -- the police
development program -- there are periodic reviews that are underway and
my colleagues who do that -- it's not part of my general responsibility on the operating side of the house -- engage in reviewson a six month basis both internally and with the government of Iraq. It was always our plan to make adjustments to the police development program over time. But the statement that somehow we have wasted or had everything pulled out
from under us because of lack of a land use agreement is very simply
false. For our other properties in Iraq we have -- we have agreements for every single property we have in Iraq except for one which is our interim facility in -- in Basra which is simply a reincarnation of a former US military there. But even in that regard we have a longterm agreement that was signed with the government of Iraq by Ambassador Negroponte in 2005 in which we swapped properties with the government of Iraq and they are committed to provide us with a ten acre facility in-in Basra of our mutal choosing. And so we are covered, sir.

He said it. Too bad it wasn't accurate or, for that matter, truthful. We'll jump over to the second
panel.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?

Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes. But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use agreements or leases.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat. So what does that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?

Michael Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as
having an explicit agreement. And as a matter of fact, there's already
been one case where the Iraqis required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright, Mr. Carroll, I would also like to follow up a question I had on the last panel about the use of Iraqi nationals in overseeing some of our investigations of it -- does that? I mean, what's your opinion that? Does that strike you as a good idea, a bad idea or something we're stuck with because there's no alternative? It seems like Americans would be a little more concerned about how their tax dollars were spent than the Iraqi nationals who are the receipients of those tax dollars. That's kind of a fox guarding the hen house, it looks like.

Michael Carroll: [Laughing] Well I-I personally I think it's a - like-like Ms. Rudman said it's an additive sort of step. We would do the same thing. For example, in some of the places where it's absolutely prohibited because of security what we will do is contract with a local CPA firm -- primarily out of Egypt -- and do a very comprehensive agreed upon procedures document that they will go out and they will take pictures, they will ask questions, they will do what we would do if we could get there. So I think that it what Mara is talking about as well. I don't see it as a problem. In fact, I see it as an adjunct to and it's not a replacement for USAID contracting
representatives and technical representatives actually getting out and
ensuring that the work is actually being done. That's not what these people are doing. What these people are doing is just going out, doing some monitoring and observing. But it does not replace what the responsibilities are for the Americans.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright. Thank you very much. And I'm not sure if I want to address this to Mr. Courts or Mr. Bowen -- whichever one of you seems most eager to answer can take this. I haven't been to Iraq. My information in the field of what it's like on the ground there is based on the things that I've read and the reports that I've seen on television. But a good many of our facilities are in metropolitan areas including the capital Baghdad and I'm concerned that we are struggling getting food and water to these folks in a safe manner. I mean, what's the procedure? Is the food delivered? How -- how is that handled and why is it a problem in a metropolitan area? There are hundreds of thousands of people in these cities, Iraqi nationals, that need to be fed. Obviously, it's more complicated than just going down to the Safeway but I mean how is that handled? And why is it such a problem?

Stuart Bowen: The State Dept, as Ambassador Kennedy indicated,
continued the LOGCAP contract after the military withdrew in December
and thus the process for bringing food into the country continued as well and that is via convoys that come up from Kuwait. There have been challenges. That checkpoint has been occasionally closed. There have been security challenges with regards to those convoys and other reasons that the shipments have been intermittent and has led to an occasional shortage of certain food stuff at the embassies. [Former US] Ambassador [to Iraq James] Jeffrey emphasized repeatedly this spring his desire to move towards local purchase but that's been slow.

Is it wrong to note that the State Dept's Patrick Kelly was not honest with the Subcommittee or
that he chose to ignore the questions asked? He wanted to insist (falsely) that there were leases
on all the Iraqi property currently occupied by the US diplomatic mission. Again, that is not truthful.

In addition, he wanted to insist that turning over a facility the US taxpayer had spent over a million
dollars on was normal and natural. It was neither. US taxpayers, if asked, might have said, "Hey,
turn it over to an Iraqi orphanage or youth project."

Or, noting the huge amount of widows due to the war, might have said,
"Turn it over as a facility for women and their children to live in."
But the same taxpayer that had no vote in whether or not to go to war
got no vote in how to spend millions in Iraq..

Patrick Kennedy declared, "It was always our plan to make adjustments to the police development program over time."

That actually may be true. (Or it may be another lie.) But the fact
is, the US State Dept refused to share the plan with Congress or the
office of the
Special Inspector for General Reconstruction in Iraq. Kennedy might
hope we forget that -- and certainly many in the press will rush to
assist him -- but those of us present at the hearings held in the last
months of 2011 remember the State Dept refusing to answer questions.

The State Dept is not an fiefdom, though Patrick Kennedy appears to believe it is. They are
answerable to Congress. It's a real shame that all these issues were not nailed down in real time.

If you're confused or playing stupid, the reason it was not nailed
down is many Democrats agreed to give the White House a blank check and
they weren't even concerned with what figure might be written in on that
blank check. That's not just me. Let's note Stuart Bowen's testimony
to the Subcommittee yesterday about the State Dept's refusal to provide
concrete answers:

Stuart Bowen: I testified before this subcommittee in November 2011 about our concerns regarding the Department of State's planned multi-year, multi-billion-dollar Police Development Program [PDP]. I raised two overarching issues that threatened the PDP's success. First, the Defense Department had not adequately assessed the impact of its own six-year police training efforts, and thus a key benchmark for future planning was missing. And second, State had not sufficiently planned for the program, either on the policy or logistical fronts. It is now beyond dispute that the PDP planning process was insufficient. It should have produced specific program goals, a time frame for accomplishing those goals, the anticipated total cost for the program, the expected scope of required resources, and a method for measuring progress. The process fell short in each of these areas. Further, to succeed, the PDP required close collaboration and support from the Government of Iraq. But the GOI's support has been weak, at best.

He did not attempt to predict what would happen or how it would play out. We've already noted
Tim was correct and accurate in his reporting. We'll note that his reporting only stands stronger
after the Thursday hearing. If Victoria Nuland had any class or character, she'd apologize publicly
to Tim Arango for the attack she launched on him.

Before we go further, we should fall back to the last hearing Jason Chaffetz chaired that we
covered. That's December 7, 2011 and from that coverage, we'll note this:

Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz: Before recognizing Ranking Member [John] Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State Dept, USAID and SIGAR will not have IGs in January. In May of this year, I wrote the President asking him to move without delay to appoint replacements. That letter was signed by Senators [Joe] Lieberman, [Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and [Rob] Portman, as well as [House Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa and Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings and Ranking Member Tierney. I'd like to place a copy of htis record into the record. Without objection, so ordered. To my knowledge, the President has yet to nominate any of these replacements, nor has he responded to this letter. I find that totally unacceptable. This is a massive, massive effort. It's going to take some leadership from the White House. These jobs cannot and will not be done if the president fails to make these appointments. Upon taking office, President Obama
promised that his administration would be "the most open and transparent
in history." You cannot achieve transparency without inspectors general. Again, I urge President Obama and the Senate to nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these vacancies and without delay.

Why is Geisel, who was at that hearing in December, billed as an "acting" anything? Is the White
House unable or just unwilling to fill these slots?

For many of us, the inaction reminds us that Barack Obama, as a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee was over Afghanistan in terms of subcommittees but never called a hearing
on the topic. Someone appears to love credits in the yearbook, they just don't want to work for them.

This can be seen also with regards to the failed nomination of Brett McGurk for US Ambassador to Iraq.

There is still no one else nominated for the post.

Before the e-mails and sex scandal broke, before the ethics questions
sprung up, it was always clear that McGurk
was an iffy nominee to be confirmed. The White House apparently planned
for no one else to be needed. So they still haven't named a new
nominee. This issue came up in yesterday's State Dept press briefing.
Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq.

QUESTION:Just a general question. I know you've addressed this in bits before. But Iraq with the Embassy there, it's been a month since Ambassador Jeffrey has gone. Obviously his named successor has withdrawn. In terms of the operations of the
Baghdad Embassy, is everything up to speed? Is it – are there
difficulties now going on without an ambassador there?

MS. NULAND: Well, it's always important to have the President's representative in the person of an ambassador. That said, we have a very strong and capable chargé there, Robert Beecroft. His relationships with Iraqis across the spectrum are broad and deep, as they are with principals here in Washington. So the mission goes on, and we are continuing to work with Iraqis across the spectrum to try to encourage them to work together on the political issues that divide them. And of course, we maintain a broad economic relationship and a security support relationship.

QUESTION: Sure. I know it's a White House issue largely, but the idea of having a new nominee --

MS. NULAND: Definitely a White House issue.

Yesterday's hearing was different from many other Congressional hearings: It actually got some
press attention. Iran's Press TV (link is text and video) opens with, "The US authorities have
discussed a new plan to secure them a long lasting presence in Iraq by
spending millions of dollars to upgrade a US embassy compound in the
war-torn country, Press TV reports."

I don't think Press TV's out on a limb with that statement. I think a
strong argument can be made-- based on the hearing -- for what the
outlet is claiming.

Yesterday, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported, "The State Department is planning to
spend up to $115 million to upgrade the U.S. Embassy compound in
Baghdad, already its biggest and most expensive in the world, according
to pre-solicitation notices published this month."

However, I'm surprised that they missed the bigger point.

I'm not surprised the US press missed it. Once upon a time, the US press lulled themselves to
sleep with sticky thighs over the thought of 'maverick' John McCain.

The press crush on the senator hit the rocks when newbie frosh Barack
strutted onto campus. Which is a real shame since the
once-madly-in-love-with-John press could now be penning, "John McCain
was right!" columns.

I'm not saying he was right. John McCain and I disagree completely on the war. But he's been
attacked over and over for comments about a residual US military force in Iraq. The big news out
of the hearing was that the inspector generals pretty much all agreed with the non-present
Senator John McCain.

What you heard from the second panel repeatedly was that the State Dept was unprotected
and that cost overruns really couldn't be controlled with the State Dept's inability to check their own projects.

While Carroll thought Mara Rudman (USAID) hiring 25 Iraqis to supervise
US reconstruction projects provided a set of eyes on these projects,
there's so much more
going on in Iraq. You had statements from DoD's Mickey McDermott about
how the lack "of a post-2011 Security Agreement or Status Of Forces
Agreement was affecting aspects of its operations. Key areas cited by
these officials as being impacted included: land use agreements, force
protection, passport/visa requirements, air and ground movement, and FMS
site stand-up. The precise impact of these command concerns with
respect to achieveing short and long-term OSC-I goals is unclear.
However, having a formal, follow-on Security and Status Of Forces
Agreemens was perceived to have value potentially in clarifying and
stabilizing Iraqi
government support for day-to-day OSC-I operations, and would benefit
longer-term relationship building."

Again, the statements should have led the press to note that McCain --
ridiculed as crazy and out of it -- actually can find support for his
assertion that there are elements that supported extending the SOFA.
(The military did support that. We've noted that repeatedly. Testimony
to Congress by
various generals have made that clear. But what happened here is that people whose job it is to
analyze made comments that backed up the claims John McCain was making.)

Violence continued in Iraq today. AP reports Balad saw one, two, three bombings "in quick
succession" today. AFP notes, "Gunmen shot dead four anti-Qaeda militiamen in central Iraq on
Friday, while a roadside bomb killed an Iraqi soldier, security and medical officials said." Reuters adds, "Police colonel Hassan al-Baldawy said at least six people were killed
and 45 wounded" in a combination of suicide and motorcycle bombings. AP adds
that four other Sahwa were wounded in the Diyala attack. Sahwa are
also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (and "Daughters Of Iraq"
for their female counterparts). Alsumaria notes that the assailants used machine guns to
fire on Sahwa. At the April 8, 2008 Senate Armed Services hearing when Gen David Petraeus,
then the top US commander in Iraq, was explaining Sahwa.

In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers
have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in
vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up.

How much lunch money is the US forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is
going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to
"savings in vehicles not lost".

yesterday's violence, "In Iraq's northern central province of
Salahudin, gunmen attacked a checkpoint manned by government-backed
Awakening Council group members in the city of Samarra, some 110 km
north of the capital, killing two group members before they fled the
scene, a local police source told Xinhua."

Piles of concrete blocks, clothes and furniture are all that remain
of many of the makeshift houses in Imam Ali slum after an
explosives-packed car tore through the area on June 13, claiming the
lives of seven people and leaving more than 20 families homeless.

The blast has left the Shiite area's impoverished residents mourning relatives and neighbours, and struggling to rebuild their shattered lives.

Hussein said he looked for houses to rent but the cheapest one he
found was 150,000 Iraqi dinars ($125) per month, and it was in poor
condition and would have required significant repairs.

There's also conflict -- in what things say they are going to do and what they acually do. Among their reports is this one
on the Ministry of Electricity's Inspector General declaring there are
fake contracts for $3 trillion dinars. If the news seems familiar, it's
because fake
contracts and the Ministry of Electricity seem to go hand in hand.
Dropping back to the August 12, 2011 snapshot:

Political intrigue continues in Iraq as well. For example, Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki
announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake
contracts worth billions. There were two main responses. First, many
stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament
did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell.
It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised
and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature.

Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made. Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli (The Middle East Media Research Institute) offers an analysis of what happened:

In July of this year, the Ministry of Electricity signed a contract
with a Canadian company, CAPGENT, for $1.2 billion for the construction
of 10 power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each. The company was registered in Vancouver, Canada. It also signed a second contract with a German company, Maschinerbrau Halberstadt, for €500 million ($650 million) for the construction of five power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each, to be completed within 12 months from the time a lineof credit was extended. It now appears that the two companies are
fictitious, and had the contracts been executed they would have would
have constituted a monumental case of fraud involving senior officials of the Ministry of Electricity.

The two fraudulent cases came to light thanks to the personal efforts
of Jawad Hashim, a former minister of planning in Iraq during the early
Ba'thist regime in the 1960s and early 1970s. In a handwritten letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, datelined Vancouver, Canada, August 2, 2011, Hashim detailed
the fraud.

As a resident of Vancouver, Hashim decided to investigate the available information on the Canadian company while he asked the former minister of economy and governor of the Iraqi central bank, Fakhri Yassin Qadduri, who resides in Germany, to investigate the identity of the German company.

In related news, Ahmed Abbasi (Kitabat) reports over six billion dollars missing from the public
funds and Abbasi wonders how this continues to happen, where are the courts, where is the
Integrity Commission? Meanwhile Alsumaria reports that Kirkuk is spending over 93 billion dinars
on a water project to ensure potable water. It's considered one of Iraq's largest water projects

Turning to the topic of intrigue, Kitabat reports on rumors that the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad is
coordinating with the Tehran-based government and Iraq's National
Alliance and that they are using cell phones to monitor the movements of
Iraqiya and other political rivals and that they are also listening in
on phone calls. If true, this is apparently part of an effort to keep
Nouri as prime minister.

A reported plan by the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al Maliki to call
an early election is insignificant. He might be thinking of ways to end
the current stalemate and hopefully get a new and broader mandate. He might as well accomplish that since his opponents are weaker and divided. But that surely will not solve Iraq's problems -- assuming that Al Maliki does care.

The real problem of today's Iraq is the attempt of one political faction to dominate the political landscape shutting everybody else out.

As Al Mada notes
today, Nouri is resisting appearing before the Parliament for
questioning. The Constitution is clear on this matter, as the
Parliament has reminded Nouri. Alsumaria reports
today that MP Mahma Khalil, with the Kurdistan Alliance, states that
Nouri must bear responsibility for what is taking place in Iraq and that
this is not about withdrawing confidence. Alsumaria sees this as a
retreat from the plan for a no-confidence vote. It may be. Or it may
be someone grasping the p.r. effect. Moqtada al-Sadr looks so much more
reasonable than many because, since April, he has publicly presented a
position (whether it's true or not) of, "I hope it doesn't come to this,
only in a last resort . . ." He has repeatedly noted that the entire
process can be stopped by Nouri if Nouri will only follow the Erbil
Agreement. Again, Alsumaria may be interpreting things correctly. But
it's also true that Nouri's began lashing out and trying to win public
opinion this week on the issue of the no-confidence vote. This may be
others following Moqtada's lead. Al Mada reports
today that the Kurdish bloc in Parliament is stating that even should
Nouri survive the no-confidnece vote, this does not end the push for
accountability. Kurdish MP Shwan Mohammed Taha states that, successful
or not, the interrogation isn't the end of things. He cites the Erbil
Agreement and the need to return to it.

In the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following today:

Iraq and Afghanistan veteran will share his story of having his PTSD diagnosis overturned

(Washington, D.C.) -- On Monday, July 2, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will hold a press conference at the Seattle Nisei Veterans Center to discuss her new service members and veterans mental health legislation, the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012. This legislation comes as the Pentagon begins a comprehensive military-wide review, which Senator Murray urged [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta to conduct on diagnoses for the invisible wounds of war datingback to 2001.

The misdiagnosis of behavioral health conditions has been a constant problem for soldiers at Madigan Army Medical Center, where to date over 100 soldiers and counting have had their correct PTSD diagnosis restored following reevaluation. Stephen Davis, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran who had his
initial diagnosis of PTSD overturned, will speak at the press conference
with his his wife to share his experience.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Thursday. And we've got a theme post tonight. We're supposed to find a piece of movie criticism and quote from it. I chose a Nora Ephron film for obvious reasons (she passed away this week). Anthony Lane is no Pauline Kael (he lacks substance and depth, among other things) but he now reviews for The New Yorker. A very thick book collects a lot of his reviews and is entitled Nobdoy's Perfect. In it, he reviews Sleepless in Seattle which he really doesn't like:

Sleepless in Seattle takes off at the moment when Annie starts dunking a tea bag and trying to chatter at the same time. It's almost too much for her whirring brain. But the movie never gives [Meg] Ryan enough to do. and her face often settles into moping; it takes on the sadness of a spoiled child, which doesn't suit her any more than her sensible plaits.The best reason to see Sleepless in Seattle is Tom Hanks, but then he's always the best reason to see a movie. Only once has everything fallen into place around him: in Penny Marshall's Big, where he took the central conceit -- a child's soul padlocked in an adult body -- and turned it into a rhapsody, way beyond anything that Marshall could have expected.

I liked Sleepless. I think it's a solid film.

For whatever reason, Anthony Lane hated it. But he likes being bitchy so factor that in.

He fancies himself better than the fancies others.

I do agree with him that Meg Ryan should have been given even more to do. I disagree about the 'great' Tom Hanks. Maybe Anthony Lane would today as welll.

I really think that Hanks is the weak link. Rita Wilson, Rosie O'Donnell, Victor Garber, Rob Reiner and others that make the film. And Meg Ryan was the perfect actress for a Nora Ehrpon film.

Thursday,
June 28, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, some wonder who will
eventually replace Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, attacks on the press
in Iraq continue, we note the attacks on Al Mada, Nouri offers name calling of his rivals, the return of the VA's dreaded Madhulika Agarwal, and much more.

In an new article published by the Navy Times today, Patricia Kime reports
on a study for the US military's Trauma Combat Casualty Care Committee
which found "that nearly a quarter of the 4,596 combat deaths in Iraq
and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011 were 'potentially survivable'."

There's
not been a comprehnsive evaluation of deaths in Iraq but that's
probably partly due to the fact that the violence has never stopped.
This morning kicked off with Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reporting 3 Taji car bombings have left at least two people dead and another fifteen injured. AP noted those numbers increased to 5 dead and eighteen injured. In addition, AFP noted a Baghdad car bombing has claimed 8 lives and left thirty injured. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quotes
Baghdad police officer Ahmed Nouri stating, "There were bodies
scattered everywhere. Glass and vegetables covered the whole place. I
feel lik my clothes are completely covered in blood and the smell of it
is in my nose. In some places you cannot tell the blood from
the (pulverized) vegetables." On the Baghdad bombing, AP quotes
Hadil Maytham who was with her children when the explosions took place,
"It shook the doors and the windows of the house. Then we heard
shooting, probably by police who usually shoot randomly after
explosions." AFP also noted a Baquba bombing claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Ramadi car bombing left five people injured. Reuters added,
"A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed one and wounded five
in Abu Dsheer, a Shi'ite area in southern Baghdad, police said." In
addition, KUNA reports,
"In Diyala Governorate southewest of Baghdad, unknown armed men killed
four security elements at a checkpoint in Baqubah city." AFP added this evening that 2 Shawa were killed in Samarra with an additional two left injured. As the day ended in the US, AP was counting 22 deaths and over fifty injured. It has been a very violent month in Iraq with Iraq Body Count counting 404 deaths by violence this month (June 1st through yesterday).

Meanwhile
many speculate about Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's health and his
eventual death, specifically who would take over. Hayder al-Khoei (Niqash) argues
it's very unlikely that Grand Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi (born in
Iraq, adult life spent in Iran) would be named the replacement as some
hope and some fear:

Shahroudi is a
well-regarded scholar but his political position in Iran hinders, rather
than helps, his prospects in Iraq. In fact, any political position a
cleric holds actually has direct – and negative – implications on his
religious credentials in Najaf. In Iran, religion and politics may be
symbiotic. But in Iraq they do not go hand in hand.

The
Shiite schools in Najaf, headed by al-Sistani have been practicing what
is known as a tradition of quietism here for centuries: that is, a
policy of religious leaders not interfering in political affairs.
Clerics in Iraq do get involved in politics and the Grand Ayatollah does
intervene in political affairs, but unlike in Iran, only on rare
occasions.

Additionally, the process by
which a successor to the religious movement is selected must be
considered. As Iraqi government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, put it:
"there will be a transition period for a few years after the leading
cleric dies but there are set mechanisms in place [for choosing a
successor] and anyone who attempts to fill this gap using financial and
political power from outside Iraq will fail".

Al-Dabbagh
is referring to the gradual process of selection, involving other
senior clerics in Najaf who will have a role in persuading the masses
toward one, or several, clerics suitable to eventually take al-Sistani's
place. It will not be clear cut at first and it may take some years for one strong, leading cleric to emerge.

As
political and financial independence is crucial, it seems unlikely that
senior clerics in Najaf will persuade the masses to start following
someone like Shahroudi, with such an overt political role in Iran.

But
the likelihood of Shahroudi replacing al-Sistani does not just depend
on theological differences between clerics in Iraq and Iran. It also
depends on the attitude of the masses. By following al-Sistani, Shiite
Muslims indicate their reluctance to tie their religious and spiritual
identity to a modern political system.

Today, AFP reports,
"Baghdad: Iraq's interior ministry has given dozens of media outlets 45
days to comply with Communications and Media Commission (CMC)
regulations over licences, or they will face 'legal procedures'." Reporters Without Borders issues a statement which includes:

Tension
between authorities and media have peaked this month with a decision by
the Communications and Media Commission (CMC) – still pending
implementation – to close 47 radio and TV stations on the grounds they
lack official permits, and with demonstrations by journalists calling
for the repeal of the Law on Journalists' Rights, which parliament
adopted in August 2011 and which is widely regarded as violating the
rights it claims to defend.

Disturbing decision by panel of questionable independence

Reporters
Without Borders is alarmed by the CMC's decision, which triggered such
an outcry that the interior ministry has given the radio and TV stations
concerned 45 days from 25 June to comply with regulations.

The CMC took its decision more than a month ago but it was only revealed on 23 June by the Journalism Freedoms Observatory (JFO), which obtained documentary evidence of the plan. It concerns both local and foreign TV stations such as the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Monte Carlo, Radio Sawa, Al-Baghdadia TV and Al-Sharqiya News.

Many
journalists and some politicians have criticized the decision as an
attempt to gag the media, pointing out that the head of the CMC is
appointed by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and that many of the
targeted media are noted either for the non-partisan nature of their
Iraqi coverage or, in some cases such as Al-Baghdadia and Al-Sharqiya, for their frequent criticism of the Iraqi government.

Iraq
is currently experiencing a major political crisis with the prime
minister facing mounting opposition. He is often accused of
authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption.

Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) head Ziyad al-Aajey told the Associated Press in a telephone interview
that he believes the latest action against international news outlets
is a direct warning from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"It is a government message to the media outlets that if you are not with us, then you are against us," he said.

But
Nouri began his crackdown on the press in July of 2006, he was freshly
named prime minister. He continued it. At one point, his attacks
translated into a reporter for the New York Times having an Iraqi
soldier aim a gun at him, pull the trigger and then laugh because there
was no chamber in the round. This is what Nouri's encouraged and
fostered in Iraq. He's sued the Guardian, he's sued everyone. Saleh
al-Mutlaq tells CNN in December that Nouri's acting like a dictator and
Nouri spends months trying to get al-Mutlaq stripped of his Deputy Prime
Minister post.

In 2012, Nouri's favorite thing is to storm Iraqi
news websites with hits to try to get them denied service. No one
comments on that because there's hardly any foreign press in Iraq
anymore. But there's too much still for Nouri. Little Saddam can't do
what he wants to do if there's a chance that the world's watching.

This led some to insist that there are no web attacks in Iraq. Yes, there are. It's pretty much destroying Al Mada
which, today, is temporarily back online. You won't find new content.
The daily has been hard by these attacks and hasn't published since the
end of May. However, May 25th they did report
that their website was exposed to daily attacks that were causing it to
crash. They apologized to their readers and noted that tehcnical staff
was attempting to prevent the hacks and the disruption of service.

Al Mada
is one of Iraq's finest newspapers -- a newspaper that repeatedly puts
US coverage to shame. It could be a leader in the Middle East.
Instead, it's repeatedly attacked and the US press can't even be
bothered with noting that fact. Is it professional jealousy or just the
US press forever being self-absorbed.

In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Kitabat reports
that Ibrahim al-Jaafair hosted a meeting at his home last night and
that various factions of the National Alliance met in what is seen as an
effort to save Nouri al-Maliki. Whether the Sadr bloc supports the
effort or not, Bahaa al-Araji did attend. Alsumaria reports that Nouri is insisting that a no-confidence vote is over and that it's either a dialogue or early elections.

Nouri
wasn't the one calling for a no-confidence vote in himself so he's
really not the one with the power to decide when such an effort is
over. Dar Addustour notes the Kurdish Alliance sees Nouri's threat of early elections as his effort to avoid being questioned by the Parliament. Alsumaria reports
Nouri is stating today that a campaign to sew confusion is being waged
in Iraq and, while that would make a good confession from Nouri, he is
yet again pointing the finger at others. Al Rafidayn quotes
Nouri stating that the answer to the problems is not rushing to the
Constitution. Well he would say that. When has he ever respected the
Iraqi Constitution? Just one example, he's been prime minister since
2006. The Iraqi Constitituion's Article 140 insists a referendum and
census on Kirkuk will be held. It insists it is not to take place any
later than the end of 2007. Despite taking an oath to uphold the
Constitution, Nouri has repeatedly refused to implement Article 140 and
offered one excuse after another of why it's not a good time. Nouri has
no respect for the Constitution and, over Article 140 alone, should be
impeached and removed from office. Despite his inability to follow his
oath, Nouri managed to insist that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is not netural and is not professional.

Senator
Barbara Boxer: I want to say I came here to talk to you about the
epidemic of veteran homelessness and to offer up an idea that doesn't
cost any money that I think would be terrific in involving the American
people in this -- fighting this epidemic. You know, I would say probably
all of us in this room -- I certainly hope all of us in this room --
have safe, comfortable homes to live in and we take it for granted. But
every night, 67,500 of our nation's veterans are homeless. 67,500 of
our veterans are homeless. This is inexcusable because no veteran should
ever have to spend a night on the streets and I know we all agree with
that. Ensuring that our veterans have safe, stable housing is also a
smart thing to do because research has shown that a home is the very
foundation that a veteran can build and sustain a successful life. In
my home state of California, I met a veteran, Holbert Lee. And when
Mr. Lee returned home from Vietnam, he ended up addicted to drugs and
homeless on the streets of San Francisco. We have an organization there
called Swords to Plowshares
and they helped him turn his life around, Madam Chairwoman, with the
help of a housing voucher and VA support services, Mr. Lee now has a
home to call his own. And today as a vocational specialist at the San
Francisco VA, he is working to assist other veterans. Holbert Lee is a
success story and proof of what can happen when we end the cycle of
homelessness. But there are too many more men and women who we have not
reached. Now our government announced a goal to end veterans
homelessness by 2015. And I like to think that when we announce a goal
like that, we mean it. This isn't just something we throw out. But
yet [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki admitted, "While we're not where we
need to be just yet, we have movement but it's too early to begin
high-fiving one another." And it is clear from those words that we have a
long way to go. So I introduced S. 1806, the Check the Box for Homeless Veterans Act of 2011.
Very straightforward. It creates a check off box on the annual federal
tax return. Tax payers can decide to make a voluntary contribution of
one-dollar or more to support programs that prevent and combat veterans
homelessness. The donations are deposited in a new homeless veterans
assistance fund established at the treasury that can only be used to
supplement Congressionally appropriated funds for these various programs
to help veterans. Now let me be very clear, the funds in the check off
box will not be allowed by law to replace any budgeted dollars --
there needs to be a maintenance of effort -- but they would be used to
supplement those dollars. So colleagues, I want to say -- Well, before I
do my real close, I want to place in the record with your permission,
Madam Chair, letters of support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, from TEAM AMVETS, from the Center for American Homeless Veterans Inc. and from the California Association of County Veterans Services Officers and Swords to Plowshares. I think -- If I might put those in the record, if that is alright?

Chair Patty Murray: We will do that.

Senator
Barbara Boxer: And I think that they -- If you read these letters,
there's -- They strongly support this approach. So in conclusion I
would say that our veterans have given so much. You're dealing with this
every day and a lot of them suffer, they suffer mightily. And having a
home is the least we can do and I think that all of Americans want a
chance to help. They -- they feel sometimes helpless. But with a
dollar on a check-off, if every American paying their taxes did that, we
could do something special. I hope you will consider this. I will
work with you to make it happen. I thank you for your dedication.

Boxer
was speaking at yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing
on proposed legislation. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Committee. Yesterday, we noted her bills S. 3340 The Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012 and S. 3313, The Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012.
On the latter, we also noted some of the testimony of Tracy Keil.
Tracy and her husband Iraq War veteran Matt Keil faced obstacles to
having a child following Matt Keil being shot on February 24, 2007 while
on patrol in Ramadi. If Matt Keil had a basic insurance policy with
any corporation, fertility and conception issues and care would not
have been an issue. As a veteran, Matt Keil's 'insurance' -- and that
of his family -- comes via the VA. And Murray's bill brings the VA up
to 2012 and puts veterans and their families on equal footing when it
comes to reproductive health. Tracy Keil probably said it best
yesterday, "War time changes a family, it shouldn't take away the
ability to have one."

This is a basic issue
that shouldn't be surrounded with any controversy or resistance. It's
not 1980, we're not just learning of Baby Louise (Louise Joy Brown, born
in 1978, the first child conceived via in vitro fertilization). Though
the VA has dragged its feet for decades, these are not new issues.
Tracy Keil was part of the second panel along with VetsFirst's Heather Ansley, Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem and the American Urological Association's
Dr. Mark Thomas Edney. The first panel was VA's Dr. Madhulika Agarwal,
William Schoenhard, Thomas Murphy and Robert Hipolit. Excerpt of the
first panel on this issue.

Chair Patty
Murray: Well the VA can't offer much in the way of care for spouses.
What does that mean for couples who need extra assistance conceiving a
child because of a war injury?

Dr.
Madhulika Agarwal: Thank you again, for this question, Madam Chair.
Uh, Congress has generally restricted eligibility of health care
services in VA to spouses. There are some rare exceptions such as in
[one word here -- no idea what she said, speak into the microphone] VA.
S. 3313 is aimed at expanding that authority to include infertility
management for spouses under some circumstances when the veteran's
injury has precluded their ability to procreate naturally. Uh, we do
not have a position on this yet but are reviewing it. And, again, look
forward to working with you and the Committee.

Agarwal? We last encountered her in the June 4, 2009 House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health. That performance led to the next day's entry here of "The VA's Madhulika Agarwal: Lying or grossly uninformed?"
In the three years, she's clearly not improved. For example, I think
Chair Murray knows S. 3313 and doesn't need anyone from the VA to tell
her what it would do -- Murray is the sponsor of the bill. We all
caught that, right? Murray asked what services VA provided. The answer
is really none. But to eat up time and give a false impression or who
knows what, Agarwal starts babbling about what Murray's bill will do.
And, in her opening statement, Agarwal had already declared that the
VA had no position on Murray's bill. (Which I think is both offensive
and a medical dereliction of duty.)

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Mr. Murphy, you addressed the Second Amendment
issue. If individuals -- Let me ask you this, how many veterans names
have been turned over to NICIS? How many are currently on that list?

Thomas
Murphy: I don't have the details on the number of names that are
currently on that list. I can tell you the details around the number of
requests for relief or removal from that list.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: How many names have been requested to be relieved?

Thomas Murphy: 185, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: And how many have been granted?

Thomas Murphy: A total of 19.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: And that's out of 127,000 names that have been turned over on the NICIS list.

Thomas Murphy: Correct. I'm assuming your numbers are correct. I don't have those in front of me.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Trust me, they are.

Thomas Murphy: Okay.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: If individuals seek releif from the NICIS
list,reporting requirements, does the VA assist them in coming up with
the evidence needed to show whether they're dangerous?

Thomas Murphy: Yes, Senator, we do.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: What do you do?

Thomas
Murphy: The Duty to Assist Act requires us to fully develop the case.
This is not a light matter in the Veterans Administration. This is a
fully adjudicated, full developed claim with a-a full decision letter
with an explanation of how the decision was arrived to with a lot of
supporting evidence and documentation provided.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Are there any veterans that are determined
incapable to handle their own personal finances that's name is not put
on the NICIS list?

Thomas Murphy: Let me make sure I understand the question. Are there veterans who --

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Do you -- You have sombody who's determined that a
veteran cannot write a check so they cannot handle their finances.
They have now assigned a spouse to be in charge of the finances. Is
there anybody that that's happened to that that veteran was not then
listed on the NICIS list?

Thomas
Murphy: I can say that there are not supposed to be. I'm not saying
that through an administrative process of errors that it hasn't
occurred.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: My understanding -- and I'll get you to go back
and clarify this if I'm wrong -- every veteran who is relieved of their
financial -- or deemed that they can't handle their own finances is
automatically put on the list?

Thomas Murphy: They're placed on the list by the Veterans Administration, yes.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: So what are the qualifications of the VA
employees who make the decisions about whether veterans and their
families should be stripped of their Second Amendment? What training do
these people go through?

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Well you've got VA -- You've got VA employees
that are making a decision about whether somebody is capable of doing
their own personal finances. That determination that they're not
capable of doing that strips them of their Second Amendment right. It's
very simple. What training does that VA employee go through to be
qualified to make a determination that would strip someone of their
Constitutional rights?

Thomas
Murphy: Our employees -- Our adjudicators are trained in determining
whether or not that veteran is capable of making the financial
determinations they have with the funds that Veterans Administration
provides that individual. As a result of that decision, they are placed
on the NICIS list. It's not a determination of whether the individual
is capable of handling firearms or not, it's can they manage their
personal finances.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I know. But when they go on the NICIS list, they are now deprived of firearm ownership.

Thomas Murphy: That's correct.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Okay. So a determination that they can't handle
their personal finances strips them of their Second Amendment right and
also, the way that it's written, it forbids any firearm to be handled by
anyone in the household. So you, in essence, strip the spouse of the
Second Amendment right, you strip children of the Second Amendment right
because you've determined that a veteran can't handle their own
personal finances. Are we in agreement?

Thomas Murphy: We are.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Okay. Now I don't want to make this too
simplistic. If a veteran can't sign their name to a check and the VA
determines that their spouse should be assigned the financial
responsibilities because you're transferring money into an account, do
we agree that that would trigger their listing on the NICIS list and
that would lose their Second Amendment right and everyone else in the
household.

Thomas
Murphy: That's one I need to ask Mr. Hipolit to verify for me. I'm not
-- I'm unaware of the requirements for other people in the household on
the restriction to own firearms.

Richard
Hipolit: Yeah, that's correct as well. I was also not personally
aware of the household restriction. I know that if VA determines the
person is incapable of handling their financial affairs that does get
them on the NICIS list but

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: But you would agree, Mr. Hipolit, that a
determination that they can't handle their finances has a wide
definition to it.

Richard
Hipolit: I would say that if VA determines that they're unable to
handle their finances that does qualify them to get on the NICIS list
and their names are referred for the list.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: That's not necessarily a mental determination. It could be a physical determination, correct?

Richard Hipolit: Uh --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: -- that they're not capable of handling their finances.

Richard Hipolit: If they had a physical disability that impaired their ability to handle they're financial affairs, yes.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: So they're automatically classified as dangerous?

Richard
Hipolit: Our determination is just whether they can handle their
financial affairs and then that automatically triggers the requirement
to refer their names.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: So would you agree that the purpose of the NICIC
list which was to take guns away from dangerous people and the threshold
that VA currently uses to determine who goes on the NICIS list are
potentially two very different things?

Richard
Hipolit: I think that the law enforcement forces determined who should
be put on the NICIS list and they determine that person --

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: But they don't in the case of veterans. In the
case of veterans, the only person that determines whether they get on
the NICIC list is the VA and it's determined based upon are they capable
of handling their own finances.

Richard Hipolit: Well the law that requires us to make a referral is --

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: And you're the only agency in the federal
government that across the board sends every person that's not qualified
to handle their personal finances to the NICIC list?

Richard Hipolit: That's not my understanding --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Are you ware of that?

Richard Hipolit: It's my understanding that other agencies refer people as well.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: Other agencies refer people but they have a
different threshold for the ones that they refer. I think they might
use the definition of dangerous and what I've heard you say is dangerous
does not come into play. Mental capacity does not come into play.
Capability of handling your own personal finances is the only threshold
and when they hit that, they're automatically put on the NICIS list.

Richard
Hipolit: From VA's standpoint, if they're determined to be unable to
handle their financial affairs, we have to refer them.

Ranking
Member Richard Burr: I hate to dig in on this. I just want to point
out to you that the threshold is very, very different at VA. There are
many veterans, spouses, and family members who are deprived of their
Second Amendment right to own firearms based upon an arbitary decision
by somebody at VA that they can't handle their own personal finances.
These people are all of the sudden labeled as dangerous when in fact the
decision may have been a physical disability that didn't permit them to
handle their own finances. I hope this is something the Committee will
look at. I -- I'm actually shocked that the Veterans Affairs Committee
is not outraged at the way this is being implemented. 127,000 of our
country's veterans are stripped of a Constitutional right. Some
probably should. Many of those 127,000 never have had that right take
away. I thank you.

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.